Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Hansard source

No-one really believes it, I must say, to take that interjection. The fact that the government is keeping up the charade is quite outrageous. We have the following quotes in relation to their so-called 1.2 million homes promise that even today they continue to perpetuate. The Master Builders Association's chief economist, Shane Garrett, has said, 'If building continues at the current pace of this government, we'll be in for less than 800,000 new homes.' The Business Council of Australia are a little more generous. They think they're only going to miss it by 300,000, so just a bit closer. The UDIA in New South Wales think they're running about 350,000 homes short. The Property Council of Australia have said, 'Just a few months into the national target window of 1.2 million homes by 2029, we know we will fall short by a third.' Again, just another 400,000 homes short.

The government should not perpetuate this mistruth in this House again. One-point-two million homes will not happen. They will be lucky to reach 800,000 homes. And let's compare their 800,000 homes to those terrible 10 years of the coalition government, where we built nearly 1.1 million homes. Those terrible years! Those terrible years of the coalition where we built more homes than this government will ever hope to achieve.

What else have we heard from this government? We hear about their $32 billion housing pipeline and programs. We're about 2½ years into this government. You can't say it's a brand new government. They're on to their second housing minister—a minister who was shunted out of another portfolio because of her failures. So 2½ years in and a so-called $32 billion housing program, how many homes do you think $32 billion should have delivered for the Australian people? If it's true, if you take them at face value, and that $32 billion has been invested into housing, and we'll take the minister at face value, then $32 billion should get you a few homes. Well 2½ years into this government we have zero homes.

Opposition members: Zero?

Zero! Zero homes delivered under a program outlined by this government. You might wonder why that's the case.

An opposition member interjecting—

Yes, we saw the skills minister had two people who had completed a course. We also heard the minister in question time. It's quite fortuitous that the housing minister had the last question because the minister was talking about skills training, and the other great thing this minister is known for is her distinguished time in the home affairs portfolio.

While we hear about more than a million migrants to this country in two years when we're not building enough homes for the existing Australians who are here, let alone a million new Australians, we also see the fingerprints of the now housing minister on the home affairs portfolio because we hear about the need for more trades to build homes. You would think that the migration program would be directed at the sorts of people who we need to build homes, like bricklayers. Let's use bricklayers as an example. This financial year we've had nine bricklayers brought in. Nine bricklayers! But to everyone who is watching this wondering how they're going to get their home built, I can assure you in the same period of time they brought in 25 fitness instructors. We have a shortage of fitness instructors now. We all need to get a bit fitter, and I will attest to that. However, this idea that we have a shortage of fitness instructors but don't worry about the bricklayers tells you everything you need to know about this government. That's why we're going to deliver fewer homes this year than we have for many years.

The latest round had approvals at 158,000. To put it into some context, the government's targets are saying that they will meet 240,000. They are already 80,000 short in the first year alone. We've seen not a single home built under their so-called $32 billion program. And guess what is the only policy this housing minister can proudly talk about? The only policy this housing minister can proudly talk about is the coalition's home guarantee scheme that's now supporting one-in-three first home buyers—a scheme that the government called socialism when we first announced it and that I delivered as housing minister. That scheme is helping one in three first home buyers buy a home with a five per cent deposit. We know the deposit hurdle for young Australians is so difficult at the moment.

That's why it's also perplexing that the government opposes the ability of Australians to get a portion of their superannuation to help them get a deposit together to buy a home. The big mistruth from this government is their claim that there is a choice between superannuation and owning a home. Under our policy, you get to use your superannuation when you need it for that deposit to buy a home and then you are required to recontribute it after you have sold that home down the track. So guess what? You enter retirement with retirement savings and owning your own home. We know if you enter retirement without owning your own home, your outcomes on every single form of financial and social measurement are worse. We know why they opposed that. It's because the rivers of gold from the union super funds and the CFMEU are continuing. They don't want that money leaving the system because apparently they know how to control your money better.

To go through the greatest hits of the housing minister, in an earlier question we asked the housing minister about the impact of the CFMEU, who are big donors to the Labor Party and presumably big donors to all of their campaigns over there. Why are they supporting the CFMEU, who increased the cost of homes by 30 per cent? For young Australians who are trying to get that deposit together, the contract price is 30 per cent more because of the rorts, rackets, rip-offs and mafia tactics of the CFMEU on our building sites. The housing minister said, 'There are some economists who don't believe that the CFMEU puts up prices in the construction industry.' So we invited the housing minister to provide an example. Who is this mythical economist? Name them. Provide their name. We are yet to hear a response from the housing minister. The housing minister has very studiously avoided answering that question. Well, I hope in this MPI the housing minister can finally demystify for us on this side of the House who this mythical economist or economists are who say that the CFMEU has not driven up costs in the construction and residential building industry in this country.

The truth is that the Labor Party have a vision for corporate ownership in this country. They want Blackstone, Vanguard and any other foreign corporate fund that is willing to invest here to put their money into Australia and have corporate landlords owning tens of thousands of homes. Meanwhile, if the housing minister had her way, we would abolish negative gearing and double capital gains tax. But they would only do that for Australian mum-and-dad investors, not foreign corporates. For foreign corporates they want to reduce their tax rates. They want them to have the most competitive tax rate possible, while for mum-and-dad investors, who provide the housing and rental stock for the third of people who rent in this country, they want to drive them out of the market and replace them with large corporate fund holders, presumably people who, just like the CFMEU, will become really trusty friends and trusty donors in future elections. We know that's what is driving policy at the moment. This government on every measure has failed Australians on housing and it should be ashamed. (Time expired)

See this speech in context